title
She was very successful at hobnobbing with the foreign elite. So don’t say she did nothing.
Google.
Benghazi.
You already knew that, right?
We had a “reset” with Russia. I saw her present the button to someone!
She successfully managed to not have any internationally-recognized state declare war on the United States. That’s the chief diplomat’s main goal, right?
More importantly, can a case be made that she was better than Madelaine Albright or Warren Christopher?
She has a resume, but was she particularly exceptional either as a Senator or SecState? I’ve seen no particular evidence that she was anything out of the ordinary to justify her elevation to the Presidency.
Well, while in office, she managed to keep her emails safe from the prying eyes of the government. Seems they want to view them now however.
Well, while in office, she managed to keep her emails safe from the prying eyes of the government. Seems they want to view them now however.
I was going to start typing out things but really, just look at the link unless you’re one of those people who prefer a “Clinton was useless” strawman.
She did a lot, and she was one of the hardest-working SoS’s we’ve had. Personal opinions about what constitutes an “accomplishment” will of course vary.
No views as to whether she was better than Albright or Christopher, although I consider her more effective at her role than Powell, Rice or Kerry were/are.
Kerry just got started.
But I do have one accomplishment I can give her: she stiffened Obama’s spine. Heck, she WAS Obama’s spine. It seems to have gone missing since Kerry replaced her.
She didn’t go to the UN and lie about another nation’s WMDs, so she’s up on Colin Powell. Four years without starting a war is better than the US historic average.
You mean didn’t start a war with US casuallties. We’re bombing a lot more countries now than we did under Bush, and done regime change of a longtime US enemy to boot.
Am I to assume that your only beef with GWB was ground troops?
You say this as if US casualties weren’t literally the worst thing about all these stupid wars. Yes, they avoided a war with US casualties – thereby avoiding the worst stupid mistake that W and Cheney made.
That’s a big difference – the biggest, in fact – that you always gloss over for some reason. Are dead American soldiers really not a big deal to you?
They are. But maybe I’m just more liberal than you where it counts, because I care about the effects of our wars on the people of the countries were “saving”. And frankly I’m surprised that they matter so little to many liberals that it’s as if there wasn’t even a war at all to them.
The effects of our war in Iraq was disastrous for most Iraqis. For Afghanistan and Libya it seems to be much more mixed, and I don’t know whether it was more positive than negative (but I’d lean negative).
So what’s your point? These wars seem to have been bad for everyone except the groups that gained power in the vacuums that were created.
Long, slightly interesting article, which I assume was primarily created by her operatives/fans. Summing it all up, she accomplished nothing. It’s not like other SoSs were very accomplished either, but it’s hardly the kind of thing to call on as experience that makes her presidential material. But she can say “I didn’t fuck anything up really bad”.
Clinton spent most of her tenure restoring relationships destroyed by the greedy and bloodthirsty, neocon republicans.
Just ftr, the last Secretary of State to be elected President was James Buchanan.